They have some kind of formal semantic structure (otherwise known as formality)
!- counter claim : - all is needed is to allow us to name - domain specific 'illation' steps - or mark a specific content in specific context to - be processed in ways we desire - name that intent, on the fly as you write, what comes to mind, so that you can find what you need when you need it by recalling that name and associated things, "concept handle"s, - express the intended interpratation/illation - as an eventually effective concept of - the intended process - or just human readable readily understandable names for it - leaving it open to future development - of appropriate illative/interpretative processes - that is TrailMarks - as a plain text Intentional Mark In Notation
!- about : Progressive Intentional Articulation | TrailMarks



















- syntactic transformation tool
- comment : syntax right semantics take care of itself
- ref : Haugland Mind Design
- if you get your syntax right
- semantics can take care of itself
- retort : get your iconcept for your intent right
- software can take care of itself
- symmanthetic manipulation
- combinig symmathetic with semantic
- effectiveness illusion of syntax being right
- integration of knowledge graphs
- for : HyperKnowledge








/pic5702797.jpg)